airdoc

thanks Roadrunner, I 'm aware of it and have also used the existing mod. But i find that it is very cumbersome to do so, and if you make any changes in the key assignments you have to go back to it and create a new image.

Hi, I 'd like to see an intuitive and easy-to-use kneeboard builder for DCS, that would be aircraft-specific. The idea is : 1. Have it as an option for each aircraft separately 2. Option for Kneeboard customisation appears in a tab relative to the aircraft (like take-off assist, etc) 3. Kneeboard is fed by the key bindings that everyone has assigned on their PC 4. Kneeboard can be customised so that each user can create lists or check lists suiting his way of flying for each aircraft (i.e. engine start checklist on one page, pretakeoff on another, touchdown and stall speeds etc) and also allows for comments, highlights or import of images. 5. Kneeboard can be saved and downloaded for others to use (assignments are automatically changed when imported according to the new user's settings, but kneeboard structure, lists and images remain the same) 6. Its purpose serves only the aircraft and not maps, mission tasks, etc, so there should be a different key for it (different than existing kneeboard key) Although this maybe difficult to make, i think that it would be very helpful, especially when people change aircraft types and have to remember a ton of key-bindings or procedures. If the ability to share is provided, the community would quickly come up with excellent custom kneeboard pages for each aircraft that could serve as quick references and tutorials. thanks

I 'm glad that you guys have found the curve to be helpful. @SkullReader : I don't own the choppers so I don't know how these settings will affect them. I have found the throttle curve to be of significant help in the P-51, and less so for the Dora and Kurfurst (with some minor adjustments). I don't know how the real-life responsiveness of the MP to the throttle is, but there are some issues when attempting to convert to a sim : throttle travel and throttle resistance. In the end, i think that it's all about getting the wanted result. With the native curve (line to be more accurate) I found myself struggling to stay in formation and doing abrupt corrections while on final approach, even when I tried to manipulate the throttle as lightly as possible. I can't imagine that it would be like this in the real thing. Now it comes naturally.

I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but everything we 've seen up to now points to this direction, at least according to my interpretation. We still have 7 months up to the end of 2015 and we are waiting for the release of NTTR and EDGE. After that, we expect to see Straights of Hormuz, which according to the latest newsletter, is far from complete. In my view this means at least 6 more months. Unless there is a different team that has been working on Normandy in parallel to the other maps -which we have not been told of-, all these mean that Normandy is to be released in 2016. I 'd put Q1-Q2 2016 as an optimistic scenario and Q3-Q4 2016 as pessimistic. I 'd like to be proven wrong btw EDIT : according to DCS September 2014 newletter : "The other major element of DCS World War II: Europe 1944 is of course the new Normandy map. The team is currently working on a new combat theater map to support DCS: F/A-18C Hornet, but once complete, will be returning to this map. At that time, we should be able to start sharing images of the new era map, complete with period ground units."

Agreed. ED seem to have chosen to release larger chunks of work together and only after extensive testing, so this leads to better quality, but longer delays.

Yes, unfortunately it seems as if there will be major delays in the Normandy map. It is supposed to be released after Straight of Hormuz (which will be after Nevada). We are definitely looking into 2016 (and this is hopeful).

Hey guys, The game's native throttle response for the P51 is very jerky at low manifold pressure ranges (20-40 inches), and as a result minute throttle movements are translated into relatively abrupt power changes. For precision flying, where 2-3 inches of change make all the difference (i.e. landing approach and formation flying), I found that modifying the throttle curve is extremely helpful. Now I can easily stay in formation without worrying about abrupt throttle-induced-yaw, overshooting, etc. With the following curve you can have precision at both low and high MPs (and you have bigger precision where you need it the most) : Deadzone 0 Sat X and Y 100 Curvature 0 Slider tick Invert clear User curve tick Values for the curve from left to right : 0 - 23 - 40 - 56 - 66 - 73 - 78 - 82 - 87 - 93 - 100 Please note that these numbers work best for the Warthog Throttle. You may need to modify them a bit for other sticks. cheers

My guess is that they are not coming up with any news because they are on the very final steps before release. I hope that the next newsletter will have something like "EDGE is going to be released in Public Alpha on "exact/date".

My wishful thinking is that : 1. They are releasing a PTO map with period units (carriers, etc) 2. Zeke is the first bird 3. A single WW2 bird in a PTO scenario wouldn't make sense. So they would have to be modelling AI opponents 4. The next step after the Zeke would be something like F6F or F4U, which is not included in the 3 planned aircrafts, but scheduled for release next year, hence the cockpit shots

Given that this landing gear is probably a Zeke's, fitting with Rudel's avatar and LN are only going to release 1 WW2 bird, i think it is the A6M2. It should be a fair opponent to VEAO's Wildcat and I 'd bet that they are releasing Midway with it, which should be an easy map to make. EDIT : Rudel, are you also making SBDs and Vals for AI?

Looks like the gear of an A6M variant :

I think that the label system should have a complete overhaul and redesign. It should be made flexible. Mission designers should be able to have various options, like : -Friend or Foe colors -Showing only aircraft type, name or distance -determining the details in the label depending on distance (ie. at max range labels are greyed, and change color when aircraft type should be discenrned) -Using signs (like circles, squares, etc) instead of names

You 're right, it would be more appropriate to state "any modern jet"

Ok Sith, I 'm not intending to create a hot argument here, but if you replace the "official release date" with an "initially estimated date as stated by the developers" you can see the pattern. I think that this is one of the reasons ED changed their announcement policy. I 'm not saying this as someone who condemns ED and 3rd parties for these delays, as many things can pop up during development. But i think that it's better sticking to reality-based expectations. When ED open the pre-order, then their deadlines are concretely met. But anything before it has a fuzzy factor. @Roadrunner : nothing has been announced for the Me-262 recently, so given that it should come after the Jug and the Spit, I wouldn't count on seeing it before the end of 2014 (at best). Don bash me Sith it's just my personal estimate :)

rule of thumb : - add 6 months to official release date for any ww2 single engine prop - add 9-12 months for any jet - add >12 months for bigger projects :)

Well, i think that since ED is a company, they have every right to use their intellectual products as they see fit. On WW2 period however, unless they have some kind of ace up their sleeve (such as multiple maps coming up by them or 3rd parties), they seem to be losing a great part of their audience exactly because of the lack of maps. My squadron had been flying around with all the new warbirds, but after some time we found no reason to keep it up, and switch to the competing sim because of : 1. Lack of map 2. Multiplayer lag 3. Spotting issue I hope that in 2015 these issues will be addressed.

I agree with you WolfRider that there are many other issues that come up when trying to simulate RL spotting in variable size and resolution 2D monitors. I think that ED would have found the "sweet spot" if, for usual monitor size and resolution, the threshold spotting distance comes close to the chart values (and at the same time larger monitors-resolutions don't yield a very different result). This may be very hard to do in a sim, but, as you pointed out, having at least some hard evidence as a starting reference point, may be useful. I think that right now in DCS the spotting threshold for 1080p and 24-27 inch monitors is at least 30%-40% less than predicted by these charts. Maybe this could be vastly improved by other measures (such as changing contrast, luminosity, etc) and scaling wouldn't be necessary, but we have to at least see some improvement.

If you 're looking for evidence-based RL spotting distances it's pretty hard to find detailed info. The best evidence I 've been able to find is this : Explanation of the diagram in original thread here : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=119885 EDIT : for a wingspan of an F-16 (which comes close to many WW2 birds), at optimal conditions, the spotting threshold should be around 7-8 Kms

I wasn't clear enough. Two people should be required in order to prevent the door from opening after someone outside the cockpit has dialed in the code trying to get inside, i.e. in exceptional circumstances. Under all other circumstances, doors are locked during flight, but are able to be opened by anyone dialing the code

Why would there be a need to lock the cockpit doors if one of the pilots *inside* the cockpit is incapacitated for some reason? On the contrary there shouldn't be such a need, because the other pilot would have to ask the flight attendants to come in the cockpit and assist/take care of the copilot.

Excellent idea, it combines the mandatory presence of two people in the cockpit with the potential of not being able to lock if only one is present (and this also serves as a motive for sticking to the 2-people-always-in-cockpit rule). Even in the case that terrorists would have seized one pilot after he exited, his replacement in the cockpit would still be able to account for the second person and lock the door (lock means overriding the opening code, the cockpit door is locked anyway during flight when it shuts).

That's really not what I suggested. And you're not quite putting an argumentative point of view. I could reply by saying "are you happier with having 150 people every year been murdered by a mental pilot or by a jihadist?" Obviously any kind of solution should weigh loss of human life as the end point, regardless of where it is coming from and see that it is minimised.

You are not getting my point. People who contemplate taking down their aircraft are not terrorists. 99% of the times they will not engange in the attempt if they know that they would have to fight / be resisted / fail and have to spend their life in jail. This is why you observe so many accidents now, after the door is locked. You could argue that Germanwings pilot did not have to lock the door, he could just have engaged in the behavior you are describing right after takeoff, etc. But he didn't. And neither of the former cases did. They waited until they were left alone in the cockpit.

If we had witnessed 3 major hijacking accidents in 2 years we would be hysterically talking about an imminent Armageddon and the rise of terrorism. If there was a single malfunction in an aircraft that had lead to 3 crashes the company would have be so much defamed that it would have shutdown and the NTSB would be behind bars for not having taken appropriate measures. Yet, we are witnessing 2 definite pilot suicides + 1 probable (the provisional report of 370 points to suicide) in two years, all of which were made possible by the existence of the door lock. This qualifies as an outbreak and as a serious new threat to flight safety. Facts speak for themselves. There is no moral justification for using a measure that protects lives on the one hand, but facilitates loss on the other one.

I think that the major issue is the door lock. It is speculated that malaysian 370 was also pilot suicide and in 2013 there was another identical accident in africa. This makes 3 serious fatalities in two years. It's an outbreak. These accidents are happening because it is now very easy to lock yourself in the cockpit alone. Wait until the copilot leaves, lock the door and that's it. Most people who engage in serious attempts of suicide have a plan. Many research it before hand. Crazy as it may sound, there is a lot of rationale in this way of thinking. Once someone has made the choice of ending his life, he then has to find out how to do it. It's not easy, because most ways are either painful, disgraceful or have the potential of not working and leading to permanent disability. With the door lock all these obstacles are overcome. It is easy to be alone in the cockpit and crash the aircraft. The plan is bulletproof. I 'm certain that the piliot of germanwings had a plan sorted out. Note that he engaged the autopilot. This was probably because he wanted to witness the final minutes. He wouldn't have done it if he had to fight for it. Two people always in the cockpit should be mandatory, but its not enough. Because there could still be many ways that one determined pilot find himself alone in the cockpit (i.e. lock during the transition, find an excuse for being let alone, etc). They should implement some rules that allow the door to be opened under specific circumstances. This door lock thing is turning to lead to more loss of life than it is supposedly saving.